PDA

View Full Version : Common-law contractual tenancy: L's Notice to Quit



petercoll
02-11-2009, 14:14 PM
Hi all

I have a question.

My friend has a General Tenancy Agreement for a house that he rents. The rent is 30k per annum. The landlord served a notice to quit to him on the 30/7/09 seeking possession of the property on the 01/09/09 for a terms breach.

The landlord now wants to pursue for rent to the end of the agreement (april 2010) even though it was he who brought the tenancy to an end. Is this right? As I understood it a notice to quit ends a tenancy agreement and whilst the landlord can expect any arrears to be paid up to the ‘quit date’ they cannot gain rent for the unexpired period if THEY have served notice.

I would appreciate some help.

Thanks

tom999
02-11-2009, 15:01 PM
For an AST (Assured Shorthold Tenancy), tenant is liable for rent for the duration of the 'fixed term' of the tenancy. If tenant moves out before tenancy end, they are still liable for rent.

However, this is not an AST, as letting at a rate of rent more than £25,000 is outside the 1988 Housing Act (however, the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 still applies).

This seems to be a common law tenancy. LL cannot gain possession using a s.21 or s.8. Letting operates on the literal wording of the Tenancy Agreement (TA).

For a fixed period tenancy, LL or tenant do not need to give notice. It ends automatically, i.e. tenant can just move out.

Periodic tenancies require a prescribed 'Notice to quit' to be served. Even if TA states otherwise, the Protection from Eviction act 1977 requires min. 4 weeks notice. If the TA says more notice is required then it must be adhered to. A court order is required to remove tenants.


The landlord served a notice to quit to him on the 30/7/09 seeking possession of the property on the 01/09/09 for a terms breach.

Which 'terms breach'?
What does it say in TA regarding this breach of term(s)?
What does it say in TA regarding period for LL giving notice during fixed term?
Why doesn't your friend simply either pay rent or agree with LL to surrender the tenancy?

jeffrey
02-11-2009, 15:25 PM
1. When did the Tenancy start?
2. For how long a fixed term was it granted?
3. It cannot continue as an SPT, because there is no statute to continue it. Any 'continuation' (after the fixed term expires) explicitly agreed by the parties, or that is implied by T remaining in situ and paying rent which L accepts, is therefore a brand-new common law contractual tenancy.

petercoll
02-11-2009, 15:48 PM
Hi
The landlord stated that he was using the property for business. he is a builder and parked vans etc within the grounds. (breach)

He (tenant) has left the property now and was happy to do so after he received the NTQ.

It refers only to section 196 law of property act with regard to notice.

The original tenancy started in 1st April 2009 and expired 31st March 2010.

The landlords agent is suggesting that even though they served NTQ they can chase for rent to april 2010.

jeffrey
02-11-2009, 16:13 PM
The landlord stated that he was using the property for business. he is a builder and parked vans etc within the grounds. (breach)

He (tenant) has left the property now and was happy to do so after he received the NTQ.

It refers only to section 196 law of property act with regard to notice.

The original tenancy started in 1st April 2009 and expired 31st March 2010.

The landlords agent is suggesting that even though they served NTQ they can chase for rent to april 2010.
So it sounds like a business tenancy. Did L and T exclude the protection of Part II of LTA 1954 before it began?

petercoll
02-11-2009, 16:28 PM
Hi
The tenancy was a residential one. T parked his vans etc within the garden boundry annoying neigbours. (they are friends of the LL). Landlord served NTQ for breach of Tenancy. T leaves the property at NTQ expiry and LL now wants to persue for rent until April 2010. Can they do this?

If the Tenancy has been ended by the LL then surely he has no right of rent to the original ending date as the original agreement is ceased?!?

thanks

jeffrey
02-11-2009, 17:20 PM
Is there any written Tenancy Agreement? If not, how can anyone contend provably that the letting is residential-only or business-only?

westminster
02-11-2009, 18:22 PM
Hi
The tenancy was a residential one. T parked his vans etc within the garden boundry annoying neigbours. (they are friends of the LL). Landlord served NTQ for breach of Tenancy. T leaves the property at NTQ expiry and LL now wants to persue for rent until April 2010. Can they do this?

If the Tenancy has been ended by the LL then surely he has no right of rent to the original ending date as the original agreement is ceased?!?


This sounds very unfair (but IANAL). What the LL seems to be arguing is that the breach effectively forced LL to give notice, yet T is liable for rent for the remainder of the fixed term because it's his own fault for breaching the terms.

But, LL didn't give T any opportunity to desist from parking his vehicle at the property (assuming this did in fact constitute a breach) before giving notice?

Did the contract allow LL to give notice to end the tenancy within the fixed term? Alternatively, did LL ask T to sign a surrender?

Has the property been re-let since T left?

westminster
02-11-2009, 18:25 PM
p.s. With such a significant sum of money at stake, your friend should pay a specialist landlord/tenant solicitor to advise him of his position.

Lawcruncher
03-11-2009, 23:05 PM
One thing is clear and that is that if the tenancy has come to an end the landlord is not entitled to any more rent.

What is not clear is how the tenancy came to an end, if it has. What exactly did the notice say?